Comments by "Aden Wellsmith" (@adenwellsmith6908) on "Understand the Economy Part 3: Why is Inequality Ignored?" video.

So Dr PHD. How big are the UK state debts? Not the reported, the real number.
14
When Rachel Reeves is reversing her policies because of it, the effect is real. The top 1% pay 27% of all income tax. When even a small percentage leave [or their assets leave], the tax take gets hit hard. That results in austerity either in the form of cuts to spending or cuts to take home pay.
2
Zero debt, and chopping off body parts of politicians who get others into debt. On Islamic finance its all usury just like any bank. No matter how you wrap it up, it looks like debt, acts like debt. Just like if it quacks, waddles, has a bill and looks like a duck, its a duck.
1
They don't. They all are playing fantasy economics. The new game. How many of them include all the state debts when they talk about debt? They all say debt to gdp is 100%. It's not. That's just borrowing to GDP, and its predicated that its not an issue if tax was 100%, services were zero, and that 100% tax goes on the debt.
1
GIGO. Why would Gary ignore the pensions debts? GIGO
1
@KrupyFren So lets look at it from a different angle. You can run a pension scheme in two ways,. The socialist approach where the contributions are redistributed. What we have now. The alternative is investment lead. here the money is invested, and the worker owns there assets, those assets used to pay their pension. In the first case the government finances work just like a household, as you've stated. Unless you can extract the value from the workers and pay it to the creditors, the pensions, you can't pay the pensions. It's not about X, its about value. It's real resources. That's what inflation linked debts are. They are a promise to pay what ever it takes to get the real resources. In the second case, you don't have a household constraint. You have a world wide constraint. Turns out that Mr Average if he had invested his NI would have had 1.2 million in a fund at retirement, and a 35K a year income from dividends alone. We wouldn't need to force austerity onto the workers to pay the debts.
1
@KrupyFren What's my premise?
1
@GhostSamaritan On models and Covid, we had that bonking professor and his model. I spent a couple of days looking at his code and it was dire. There's instead the SIR model. That's what should be used and that model is based on justifiable simplifications and hard maths [central limit theorem] for the parameters. You can adjust the parameters as the epidemic progresses, and that should be done based on a Baynsian approach. The initial parameters, you take them from the last Covid/Sars outbreak. The problem with Gary and co, is they don't even input the basic parameters. They ignore them because their politics have created them, and the effects are dire. ie. Exclude the pension debts. What if they didn't exist? Fantasy economics. People are desperate because of the effects so they buy into the sham. Look at the comments to see that.
1
@larfermor GIGO is the problem with economics. Major errors on the input side.
1
Almost. When it comes to real resources its physical. When it comes to Gary Economics, its just a fantasy game like fantasy football. What would happen if we ignore reality, what if? ie. What if we ignore 90% of the state debts.
1
@jamesalderman1443 The bigger error, and its Gary's is GIGO. Garbage in Garbage out. If you don't put all the debts into your system, you wont' get correct answers out even if the model is correct.
1
Why? What does that achieve?
1
@pipeandpotter1236 The BoE sets the base rate to control inflation. Interest rates have gone up because of QE [all money loaned to the state], and spent. Second bit of BoE policy, is to control risk. So I take it you were objecting to rich people hoarding cash at 0% interest, and tax evasion on the income as a result? What needs to change? The BoE Target should be the price index. Rebase that to 100, and the target is 100+-5. If it goes outside that range, the BoE Board is sacked and replaced.
1
Why are you missing out the big state debts in an effort to try and make state debts look affordable? Meanwhile why is the state making a 30% PROFIT on its services? It's the debts. It's causes austerity.
1
Wind turbines = higher prices.
1
@shadowofmyfutureself Gary's one of them. For example the other day he talked about goven debt being affordable. ie. The ratio of debt / gdp being the measure. What debt? Oh only the debt owed to his banker mates matters. All the other debts, like PS worker's pensions, state pensions, nuclear clean up, EU, Post office and NHS damages, ... not included. That makes the debt look 'affordable'. Next GDP. As if the state can tax 100% and deliver zero services. Inflate the income, the denominator makes the debt look affordable. One the rich leaving, what happens is that their wealth leaves. They don't have to. Remember the top 1% pay 27% of income tax. How many have to leave [or their wealth] to have a serious effect on the UK government? Same for companies. If companies decide, we're going to put our money elsewhere, you lose tax money mostly because of the jobs it generates.
1
@BocaoZ It's spot on. 16 trillion pounds of pension debts off the book. 30% of state spending on the debts means austerity Taxes 30% above cost of services. low take home pay, cost of living crisis. Wealth inequality caused by the asset stripping of the workers. So why woudl a PhD Lecturer ignore all the debts?
1
@Everlast-2025 Congratulations. You've done more than Richard who won't admit to the debts. Now it's more. That's with the assumption that the wealth has been invested in AA Corporate bonds, and that there is never any default. Risk free rates, to discount, are much lower than AA Corp Bonds. So the actual debt is far higher. Then on top, there are the other debts. Nuclear clean up is a hard one to default on.
1
 @Everlast-2025 So what's that gearing? Totall Debts / (tax - core spending)? What's the annual rate of increase and how does that compare to GDP? Can Mr Average afford a pro rata share?
1
@vonder7 The country is struggling for two reasons. 1. The asset stripping by the welfare state of the masses, placing the workers into debts. 2. Mass importation of poverty. Neither Tories or Labour have any policies to fix it because they created the mess.
1
@bacrebac Apart from statistical mechanics! 🙂 Lots of areas even in physics ... The difference is that when it comes to economics etc, Garbage in Garbage out is the norm.
1
@vonder7 So here's the counter example. How's the ineqality created? If its created by a lack of working, then I agree with you. If its created by the state asset looting the wealth of the workers, then its more than unhealthy, its a disaster
1
@fiqhonomics So was debt, but you have the left saying borrow and spend. Perhaps Sharia law should be applied to MPs.
1
@ pareto distribution
1
@ Unfortunately there is NO free market solution for base load energy Yes there is. Cheaper prices for those that accept brownouts, and expensive prices for those t hat don't.
1
@ How's is government debt sustainable?
1
@ And that's symptoms. What's the cause? Where are the trillions the workers have paid the socialist welfare state?
1
@ So how have they analysed where the trillions the workers have paid welfare states for their old age have gone? They have whinged about the effects of the ponzi, not the ponzi.
1
@ So the welfare state. Trillions paid in. Now what does socialism do? Screws people.
1
@ It's a socialist problem. The workers have paid the DWP trillions of pounds. SS has been paid trillions of dollars. Vast amounts of wealth taken from the workers causing wealth inequality.
1
@ticosewell No. The problem is the state asset stripping people and forcing them into debt. Even Richard can't admit that the workers are owed a pension. He can't admit to the size of the debts.
1
So where are the trillions the workers have paid the socialist welfare state? Produces a debt, that's negative wealth. Why are you surprised at wealth inequality that is a direct consequence of that ponzi?
1